Document 59-A has been admitted. It states that Himmler had only the Party rank of a Reichsleiter, but that he was not actually a Reichsleiter, and this may be of legal significance. of the Gestapo at Dusseldorf, dealing with the mistreatment of foreign workers. In that document all abuses are prohibited, and a special court is mentioned according to which the guarding personnel were punished if they deprived people of liberty and mistreated them.
Thus, Mr. President, I have submitted all the documents. I shall now turn to the affidavits which have been granted me.
THE PRESIDENT: You are going to deal with your affidavits now?
DR. SERVATIUS: Yes, sir. these 64 affidavits which are granted to me. I should like to proceed new with that list. to the High Tribunal. Up until now we have only had this document in the English language. who had been a Block Leader. He deposes on the subject of how he had to take over this office and what was to be done there. He gives particulars, and he mentions the significance of the organization book, which plays a part in so far as many conclusions are drawn about the size of the organization and about the activity of the various members. This book was only a draft, and was to be a working basis rather than a final Party solution.
Document number 2 has not been translated. It may be found in the transcript of 16 July 1946 before the first Commission hearings, page 3227 of the German text. This is the testimony of a Kriminalobersekretaer of Munich, who mentions how he was taken over and then turned down as unreliable, but later on used nevertheless. The gist of the matter is to show that these were not important political offices which could only have been carried out by a political dignitary, Hoheitstraeger. That answers various questions.
3229. This is a personal employs who was a Block Leader for eight years.
Then we turn to Affidavit No. 4 to be found on the same page. This is deposed by a man who was active in a small city for ten years as a Block Leader and who was a former member of the Trade Unions. He deposes on NSDAP activity. Be also deals with the card index system which was kept of the inhabitants and he deals with the orders and instructions that he received.
Affidavit No. 5 emmanates from a man who is 72 years old, who for many years was a Block Leader and then later a Cell Leader. He deals with the question of spying and says that it was unwise and that it created ill-will and mistrust. He also mentions the reason for his joining the Party and he describes the type of people from whom the Block and Cell Leaders were made, restaurant keepers, inn keepers, tailors and so forth.
Now I shall turn to Affidavit No. 6, which has been translated. This is the testimony given by an official from Stuttgart. He Heals with conditions before the war and defines the views held by a Block Leader and his attitude in that connection.
Affidavit No 7 has not been translated. It may be found in the transcript of the Commission, page 3233. This witness was a war Block Leader and a graduate engineer. He defines his attitude on the card index system and, in a picturesque way, describes how a Block Leader in that region acted. He mentions everything from the collection of Party dues to the removal of snow and covers the entire sphere of activities with which he had to be familiar.
No. 10 is the testimony of a Zellenleiter, who deals with the relationship with the Church in the district of Cologne, and says that at the erection of this Cell they were all members of the Evangelical Church; that his father was a member of the Church and that in the neighborhood theologians appeared as speakers; however, that everything changed with the year 1935 with the origin of the German Christian movement.
Document 11 has been translated. It comes from a Kreisamtleiter -- than is some professional man, professional official with the district of Cologne. It deals with the card index system.
I omitted Document No. 9 -- I skipped it before. It comes from Prague and Oldenburg and deals with matters generally.
Now I should like to refer to Affidavit No. 16 and must make a correct I repeatedly refer to these documents as "documents", which may bring about arrant confusion. Documents are in the document book whereas the affidavit have been numbered separately and specially.
Affidavit No. 12 was made by a toolmaker who was organized in a toolmakers' union and who knows 200 Block Leaders. Above all, it deals with the question of the nomination and confirmation of a political leader, that this hardly took place.
Then Affidavit No. 18 was deposed by a Cell Leader in Bremen who was a higher inspector. He deals with the question of coercion as to the taking over of office. He says that the had to fill out questionnaires which were incorporated into his personal files and records.
Affidavit No. 19 was deposed by a Block and Cell Leader at Hamburg and he deals with the question of whether functionary is a Hoheitstraeger on and in detail concerns itself with these facts which led to make up the judgement.
Affidavit No. 20 comes from Berlin and it shows the activities there in the metropolis; the collection of winter health contributions, other contributions, the distribution of pamphlets, and so forth. It also deals with the question of information about certain individuals and the carrying through if negative reports were given in which had been asked for in office channels, that an extensive investigation from above would have taken place in order to check the authenticy or reliability of the accusation.
Affidavit No. 12 comes from Berlin, Hessenwinkel, which is in the Sow Zone. This is a publisher who gives a clear picture about conditions that obtained in his sector.
Affidavit No. 17 comes from Dresden and ennumerates the activities of Block Leaders, just purely non-essential things. He deals with the meeting of the members of the various staffs in the party and ascertained that the Block and Cell Leaders were less influential than the members of the Ortsgru Finally we have Affidavit No. 21 which cones from Eisenach and which d with the question of the treatment to the population : Spying is prohibited treat them decently.
Affidavit No. 13 comes from the Gau organization leader of the Gau of Munich, Upper Bavaria, and deals with the evidential value, public value of organization's book; the question of functions of Hoheitstraeger and the authority of the individuals. He says that the opinions and plans about Block and CELL Leaders which are set forth for propaganda reasons, that these concepts are highly exaggerated. which are Affidavit No. 14, which deals with an Amtsgerichtsrat, who deals with the problem of authority. Then there is a farmer from Westphalia who was elected Mayor. He also states, dealing wit the sovereignty rights, that the did not exist with the Block and Cell Leaders and that spying activity never did take place.
Affidavit No. 15 is an affidavit deposed by a Kreisleiter at Moettling He gives a survey about the Block and Cell Leaders in his district and how to were comprised 40 per cent adjusted workers, 20 per cent small farmers, 20 percent members of the various professions. He deals with the tasks involved in the giving out of food cards, that was the main point, and as far as the organization book is concerned, he said that that was just written down.
Affidavit No. 24, given by Karl Hederich, has been translated. It deals with the problem of the number of the political loaders, which I touched upon when I submitted my documents. This witness was in the Reichsleitung of the party and he was the deputy for documents. He dealt with statistical material and he had to do summarize work there. The question which he treats in his affidavit he is well inform upon. Regarding the fact that only 600,000 people had been picked up, in his affidavit he shows, that the number of the political leaders in reality was at least one and one half million. He emphasizes in this connection that this figure is set very conservatively and that he had taken into consideration that one person might have had more than one office.
Affidavit No. 25 is a Commission Report No. 1, page 3602. It deals with the significance of the organization book, whose terminology seems to be a pillar of our proceedings here. He says that he had talked this mat over with the expert author of the book, that is the witness Lehnert, and that he stated that the book was not accurately producing actual facts but that these were to be developed along these lines in the future.
Then Affidavit No. 26 given by Foertsch. He is the former Gau Ortsgruppenleiter of Munich, Upper Bavaria. He, too, says that the book was a pure the oretical work.
Affidavit No. 27 is the second affidavit by the same Hederich just mentioned from the Reichslietung, and the significance of the organization's book is described in detail on the basis of the personal knowledge of its origin.
16 Aug A LJG 21-1 Meehan leader, Adam Foertsch mentioned, wherein he defines his attitude to the question, "What is the Corps of Political Loaders?" His statements tend to demonstrate the difference between the Dienststellung and the Dienstrank. He says only a fraction of those people had an office in the party and were considered to be political leaders. In the Gau mentioned, Munich and upper Bavaria, 20% of the people who held party offices were political leaders, the balance of the 80% never were political leaders, therefore, you cannot give this legal consideration and a reduction in the number must be arrived at. Then he points out the granting of the title, "Political Leaders" and that the giving of the offices were carried out by various agencies. that the Reich speaker and the Gau speaker did not have any political rank or obligation. Schaller, who was a district leader at Cologne. He deals with the so-called family card index, which was in Cologne and states that because of the conditions regarding the taxes, most of the card filing system was destroyed. He said that a lot of these cards never had been filled out. political opinion. He states that the positions under the Kreis Leadership could not give any such opinions. been submitted by the prosecution, Document D-728. At that time I disputed the authenticity of the Document and various witnesses testified on behalf of the Document. Here, we have an affidavit deposed by a man who was the adjutant to the Gauleiter and for years worked with him. He says, according to his personal knowledge, that judging by the nature of these letters, they could not come from the source they are attributed to and he says the same thing.
16 Aug A LJG 21-2 Meehan
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, I am very anxious that the prosecution's case should rest on documents which are unchallenged as far as it is humanly possible. Therefore, rather than to have any dispute on the Document, the Prosecution will not rely on that document which is dealt with here.
DR. SERVATIUS Mr. President, if I understand correctly, this Document D-728 by Sprenger is being withdrawn. Is that correct?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, go on.
DR. SERVATIUS: Then I will skip Affidavit 33, which deals with the Springer document. was in charge of one of the high party courts and he describes the rank. He states that party judges were not political leaders, but rather in 33 and 34 in the organization book, a change was made, according to which change they come closer to the party.
Mr. President, may I refer once more to the Document, which has been withdrawn, D-728. May the excerpt recorded from that document be stricken from the record?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I make no objections, Mr. Lord. when I withdrew the document, I withdrew it entirely from the record. Certainly.
DR. SERVATIUS: Now, I shall turn to the various departments (Fachaemter) which are departmental offices.
THE PRESIDENT: Go on, Dr. Servatius.
DR. SERVATIUS: Now, I shall turn to the affidavit dealing with the various departments, the export offices in the staff and the various groups in the political leadership offices. In the staff of the functionaries for the various groups of offices, there were the regular political leadership office, the party administration office and then finally the professional and specialists offices. The specialists offices were annexed and in a disciplinary fashion were subordinate to the functionaries, but they received their instructions directly from the Reichs 16 Aug A LJG 21-3 Meehan leiters.
I shall begin with Affidavit 35 deposed by Schoen. He deals with the training material and the schools and also with the severing of connections with the church and in this connection, he says that this is prohibited. He says further that he never in any way or in any connection participated in any crimes against humanity. He testifies as to the activities connected with his office.
Then Affidavit 36 is deposed by Dr. Schulz of the Gau propaganda office in lower Silesia. In part he states and testifies as to the kind of information that was given out and how in the beginning of the war everything happened very rapidly and surprisingly. He further talks about the setting up of the DAF and his propaganda activities. He also states that only 4% of the people in office were salaried employees and 96% of then were honorary officials, also that 70% belonged to the Christian denomination. tion. the finance administration branch. He confirms the exclusive activities of finance and administrative matters and how they were kept away from all political tasks. The group of experts may be looked at in the way that they are the party liaison men. Then he explains the various expert counsellers and finally the office of welfare and public care, dealing with the Women's league (Frauenschaft) and Students League, which belong in this group. They are indepedent organizations, which have no connection to the functionary and officers and staff. They were the local leaders in the Gau and in the Kreis in their various capacities. Here before the commission, there were two female witnesses from the Frauenschaft, Westemacher and Paul and from the Dozenten Bund, Dr. Grudober appeared before the commission.
Service (Muetterdienst). It says that she had no connection with the Gauleiter or one of his collaborators and she describes her responsibilities to her superiors.
As affidavit No. 39, a female physician testifying, Hildegard Brauns. She describes the activity of the Frauenschaft, Kreisleiterin and the Wiesemuenden and the way of the consultations, the way that they were carried out but on the consultations which did not deal with purely feminine matters, had to leave the room and they were never called in for political work. Reichleiters and educators and teachers, I cannot submit an affidavit as yet. For technical reasons it was impossible for me to do so.
For officials, I have the affidavit No. 40, deposed by Dr. Schenk, who also confirmed that when it came to conferences of the functionaries with their staff officers, these groups did not participate and he said that since 1943 the office for officials was cut off for their work was considered insignificant and unimportant. by Schoeneberger from Cologne, who describes his activity and mentions his sphere. He says that he was only called in so far as factual and expert opinion of a technical nature was required. statements along the same lines as the witness, before many Diensts, and said that our work had to be done without may and along secondary lines.
Then the Office of Public Health follows. Here affidavit 43 applies, which was deposed by Dr. Alfred Sassa, head of a district public office. He says that the local leaders of the National Socialist physicians is legal -at the same time with the leaders of these officers for public health. He describes the fact that as far as expert work was concerned, he was called for consulting purposes; that as far as the conferences of the inner circle was concerned, the physicians however were not admitted, so that they were not informed along political lines.
Then the legal offices follow, deposed under affidavit 44, Dr. Steinhauser from Augsburg. He deals with the lawyers' work and tasks and he says that the legal offices who were annexed to the staff had no political significance since already in 1942 they were dissolved as being non-essential to the war effort. trade, economic consultants and delegates or recial politics. In this connection, I should like to submit affidavit 45, deposed by a man of the DAF, whose name is Haller. He describes in detail just what the DAF men had do, what the position was and emphasizes exclusively social work was the only activity which was carried on in his sphere. witness at my disposal.
Then follows the affidavit No. 46, deposed by the former Reich Minister for Nutrition and Agriculture, Darre. He deals extensively with the development of the Reich Food Administration and clarifies in so far as how a Bauenfuehrer can be active in the party or how he can belong to the Reich Food Administration and shows that the Reich Food Administration was very very much independent of the party and was an independent unit which, up until 1942, could have and did have much independence of the party -- up until 1942. In detail, he expresses his views on various questions, such as towards the church and by the Bauernschaften.
Then I shall turn to the Office for Communal Politics. I have two affidavits; one deposed by Dr. Plank, dealing with Nurnberg. He says that the party concerned itself with the human leadership, whereas legal and administrative questions -
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Servatius: I don't know whether Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe was going to refer us to those passages in Goering's evidence this evening; maybe he was. Perhaps we better break off now because we may not be able to finish the whole of this affidavit summary. Were you, Sir David?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I was going to inform your Lordship of the fact that we hadn't been able to find any passages in the examination of the defendant Goering.
It extends over certain ones. I hoped we hadn't missed them but we have been through the and can't find them.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, that leaves the application of Dr. Stahmer in this position. The document that reference is made to is No. 008, which is a letter of the witness Sievers and it contains the sentence: "As I have informed you, the direction for carrying out the experiment is in the hands of the Director of the Hygienic Institute of the Reich University of Strasburg. Professor Dr. Haagen, Major in the Medical Corps and Consulting Hygienist to an air fleet, who was commissioned with this taks by the Reich Marshal, the President of the Reich Defense Counticl..." That, my Lord, is the effect of it. The position is that when Fieldmarshal Milch was giving evidence, letters were put to him, on document 343-PS and the second of which, under date of the 31st of August, said that he had heard with great interest of the reports of Dr. Rascher and Dr. Romberg -- "I am informed about the experiments. I shall ask the two gentlemen to give a lecture combined with the showing of motion pictures to my men in the near future." acting as the signatory for his own medical inspection in the air force when he signed these letters and he couldn't remember anything about them. My Lord, that was the way the evidence was left. As to the rulings of the Tribunal, there are two that seem to be applicable. One was that when the Tribunal decided that the order should be final speeches of the defendants before the taking of evidence of the organizations, the Tribunal stated the 31st of May, that the defendants will be allowed to call to the attention of the Tribunal any circumstances developed in the hearing of the organizations which is thought to be helpful to their decense; and, my Lord, previously the Tribunal had laid down the general ruling that certain sub-paragraphs of their ruling of the 23rd of February do not limit the power of the Tribunal to allow a defendant to be recalled for further testimony in exceptional cases if, in the opinion of the Tribunal, the interest of justice so requires.
My lord, the prosecution feel naturally reluctant even to suggest to the Tribunal what is an exceptional case and what are the interests of justice in a particular case but, My Lord, they do want to make two points--one particular to this application and or in general. The point peculiar to this application is that it was known, of cours when the defendant Goering went into the witness box that there were these letter in existence and that his second-in-command. Fieldmarshal Milch, had said that t medical inspection of the corps of the air force were dealing with these experiments and in touch with the SS on them. My Lord, as far as we can find, the matter was not pursued after that: therefore, at that time, the defendant had notice of the general position although not -- I wuite agree with Dr. Stahmer--with those particular experiments dealing with spotted fever.
My Lord, the prosecution desire to emphasize this, that this procedure ought to be confined to exceptional cases where the interest of Justice requires this course very clearly. It would be unfortunate if this procedure of recalling were to become common or were to be deals with on any points which are not of primary importance. Your Lordship, of course, remembers that the English rule is that the procedure is only used for matters which are ex improvise. As I say, the prosecution here cannot say that the particular point of spotted fever is not ex improvise but the general position of experiments was brought to the defendant's attention before he gave his evidence and therefore does not arise as an unforeseen point. I don't think that the prosecution can help the Tribunal further regarding this matter.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will consider the matter. On Monday the Tribunal will sit until one o'clock. After one o'clock, they will sit in closed session.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL*FYFFE: I am much obliged.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 19 August 1946, at 1000 hours.)
HERMANN WILHELM GOERING ET AL., DEFENDANTS, SITTING
MR. DODD: Mr. President, I would like to be heard very briefly this morning on the application of Dr. Stahmer for permission for the defendant Goering to take the stand. I made no objections Friday, but I feel that I should make one so that the Tribunal will know what our attitude is. distinguished colleague, Sir David Maxwell Fyfe, but I do wish to add a few comments on behalf of the United States. Dr. Stahmer, as we understand them, are the evidence or the testimony of the witness Sievers and the document which was offered during his examination, wherein there is some indication that the defendant Goering had authorized or ordered a Dr. Haagen to institute these medical experiments.
Now, it seems to me that the reasons which I called to the Tribunal's attention at the time of the Funk application apply here. Of course, I accept the ruling of the Tribunal with respect to the Funk application with good grace. I do not want to have it appear that I am raising objections against a matter that has been rule on.
THE PRESIDENT: Which application did you say ?
MR. DODD: The Funk application. It seems to me that there is a similarity in these matters, and particularly the Funk experience now would seem to have some bearing on this Goering application. It is my own judgment, which I respectfully offer for the Court's consideration, that Funk did not really add anything pro on can to the proof in this case by his re-appearance on the stand. He only succeeded in taking up a little of the Tribunal's time.
already denied really the heart and soul of the Pohl affidavit and that he could not do much more than re-affirm it on the witness stand, and that is, I respectfully suggest, almost precisely what happened. to call to the Court's attention that long before Goering took the witness stand the Prosecution had offered its proof concerning these Luftwaffe medical experiments, so that he knew about them; his Counsel knew about them. and if his Counsel had cared to inquire about them, he could have done so on Goering's direct examination, but no chose not to do so. He did not raise the question at all. He passed it by and preferred, as was his right I assume to rest the matter with Goering's witness Milch, and we cross examined, through our Chief Counsel, Mr. Justice Jackson, the witness Milch on that question.
ledge or participation in these Luftwaffe medical experiments it is a very simple matter and there is some precedent here for it now in view of the Frank affidavit. I suggest he file a very brief affidavit that would be no more than a few short sentences saying he did not have knowledge and that he did not participate. The Tribunal allowed Frank to do that. He went pretty far. His affidavit took 20 minutes. I certainly do not think it would be necessary for Goering to take anywhere near that much time. As an alternative, and I have not talked with my French and Russian colleagues, Sir David Maxwell Pyfe and I agree, and I think they will, that the records show that Goering denies that he had knowledge of or participated in the Luffwaffe experiments. That would be satisfactory to us. In any event, what we would like to avoid is any kind of a procession to the witness stand by these defendents. They have had a full hearing. This Tribunal has been very patient. I think they will be imposing on the Tribunal if they take the stand for these purposes which can be accomplished in a much more simple manner. that Goering really wants to take the stand for this simple purpose. I think he wants to filibuster against judgment. I think I would be remiss in my duty if I did not so advise the Tribunal this morning. Therefore, we object very strongly, if I may say so with great respect, and ask that either he submit his denial in the form of an affidavit or that the stipulation in the form we suggested be accepted by the Tribunal. lar application be refused at this stage of these procedings, the opportunity to again get on this stand and again take up time with matters that really do not go to the heart of the proof. I would be the last man here to try to cut out of this very important trial anything that I thought was really vital or important. I would not cast any shadow of unfairness or any suspicion of it, upon this splendid record of fair-ness the Tribunal has compiled.
I do not believe any prejudice will be evidenced if we ask Goering to fill out a brief affidavit or if we ask his counsel to agree to our offer to stipulate. Thus we will save much of the Tribunal's time and we will got on further with these proceedings.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will consider the matter.
Dr. Servatius, you were going through, as I said on Friday with great ability, these various affidavits, were you not?
DR. SERVATIUS: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Is it not the case that all these affidavits were summarized in the proceedings before the Commission and we, therefore, have before us a reference to each one of these affidavits?
DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, that is only partially true. I, personally, did not attend all the sessions of the Commission. Therefore, I do not have an exacting over-all picture. The affidavits which I wish to submit now, I shall try to characterize most briefly in order to turn to those affidavits which were not dealt with in the Commissions and these were but veryvery few.
THE PRESIDENT: Up to the present, I am only pointing out to you these things with reference to the past. You have drawn our attention to a number of affidavits. I find in the record before the Commission that nearly all of these affidavits have been literally and expressly summarized by counsel on behalf of the Corps of Political Leaders. The prosecution has stated its position.
DR. SERVATIUS: Yes, Mr. President, it is a brief compilation. It was submitted at the beginning. Perhaps I can briefly make statements as to the last few affidavits so I can turn over to the collective affidavits.
THE PRESIDENT: I hope you will be very very short, then, and confine yourself only to these affidavits which have not been summarized before the Commission.
DR. SERVATIUS: Then I should like to refer to Affidavit Number 47 and affidavit Number 48. Both of them deal with the Communal policy. This is an office of but little significance. I should like to refer to the contents only. Then there is the affidavit of a Gau Economical advisor. During his two years of activity, he had but once to speak to the Gauleiter. 50 which the Plenipotentiary for official delegates opposes. We see in the actual racial policy we have known it during this proceeding, he had nothing whatever to do. Then follows the Affidavit of Gauamtsleiter who points out the separation of the various officers and the segregation. The last is an affidavit by a Gauamtsleiter for the care of war victims. He points out the various officers connected with this work. In this way, Your Lordship, I have come to the end of my dealing with the separate and single affidavits, however, I should like to submit a few more affidavits. with 53. Before I turn to those I should like to submit 4 single affidavits first. The reason for submitting them now is that they were mentioned rather late by the Prosecution. The first one is an affidavit by Gauleiter Hoffmann. It deals with the Euthanasia treatment. He gives his opinion. This is affidavit Number 65. I should like to submit this affidavit.
THE PRESIDENT: Is this an offidavit which has not been submitted to the Commission?
DR. SERVATIUS: It was not submitted to the Commission for at that time the Commission had concluded its hearings already.
THE PRESIDENT: You cannot put in any new affidavits. The Tribunal so rules.
DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, they were not dealt with in the Commission and in no way have they been a topic of the proceedings, but because of their being submitted by the Pros-ecution recently, I must have the opportunity of dealing with them.
New documents were submitted. I have had the permission to deal with them and I ask the permission to have these documents admitted for that purpose.
THE PRESIDENT: I suppose that is right if they are dealing with new documents.
DR. SERVATIUS: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: There are only 4 affidavits. Is that it?
DR. SERVATIUS: Yes, only four. Ambassador Abetz dealing with the Jews in France. He explains this incident. He defines his attitude. I should like to submit this affidavit. which has been submitted and marked USSR 143 in dealing with the Styrian Heimatbund (Home League) and affirms that this was not a part of a party organization.
The last affidavit deals with Document EC 68. It deals with the confidential letter of the Baden Landesbauernschaft and with matters which are well-known to the High Tribunal such as the treatment of the Polish workers. 38,000 in number. I gave a much greater number. I believe I was a victim of the picture that I supposedly presented and the report which was presented by Colonel Neave in which he says that there are 50,000 affidavits. Out of 38,000 affidavits certain extracts were dealt with such as the Church question, and the Jewish question. These experts compiled these statements, and sumarized them.
THE PRESIDENT: Oh yes, now you are dealing with number 53.
DR. SERVATIUS: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Well now, on pare 3777 of the transcript before the Commissioner that affidavit is fully not out, I mean to say it is fully summarized.
DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, I just want to give an explanation so that a picture can be fathered as to how these summaries were arrived as. However, if the Tribunal does not consider it necessary for me to go into that explanation -
THE PRESIDENT: Well, Dr. Servatius, we have got an enormous number of documents in this case and surely to have the same thing done twice over at this stage is unnecessary.
Have you got page 3777 before you?
DR. SERVATIUS: No, I have not.
THE PRESIDENT: As I understand it 53 is a collective summary and report on the affidavits which follow, is that not so?
DR. SERVATIUS: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Well then, in this transcript of the evidence before the Commission it says that the result consists of the group report by Karl Hederich and of the following individual declarations, Jewish persecutions -that is 54; treatment of foreign civilian labor and prisoners of war -- 55; disassembling of trade unions -- 56; concentration camps by Richard Hueller -57 operational staff Rosenberg by Richard Mueller -- 58 and so on right down the list.
DR. SERVATIUS: Yes. Then that has been read. However, I did not receive this report. If it is contained therein then, of course, I do not need to submit it now.
THE PRESIDENT: It is already set down in the transcript.
DR. SERVATIUS: At that time the matter was discussed that certain of these main affidavits would be translated and should be submitted and that was the thing I wanted to do now and I also wanted to cite the contents of the various affidavits as they concern themselves with the various points. The first affidavit, 53, only states how the entire thing was done. Then the second one deals with the Jewish question, that is affidavit 54.
THE PRESIDENT: What I am pointing out to you that what you are saying identically is set down in this transcript. What is the point of repeating it for another transcript?
DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, I do not knew this report and what it covers.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, it sets out the contents of 53. 54. 55. 56 and there is Mueller 57.
DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, is it possible that I receive a copy of this report and in case I find it necessary to make remarks that I be permitted to do so?
THE PRESIDENT: I am told you have got the German of this. It is the transcript of what happened before the Commissioner and your representative Dr. Link, is the man who was doing it. It is on page 3777.
DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, I just missed this because of the quantity of material. Therefore, I should like to refer to it without dealing with the affidavits one by one. one point. There are two theologians who very extensively and comprehensively deal with this matter and this seems to be of great significance to me.
Mr. President, I have concluded my submission of documents. members who participated, I had a statistical report set up yesterday. Perhaps I may submit this for the aid of the Tribunal rather than as a piece of evidence instead of the statistical party book which is in the library of the Prosecution so that one can figure out just what is to fall under the Indictment I should like to submit this as an aid to the Tribunal rather than as a piece of evidence, if I may. It is in the German language.
THE PRESIDENT: Have the Prosecution any objection to the submission of this document?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FIFE: My Lord, of course we have no idea what is in the document at the moment. But, My Lord, I think we shall make no objection to it.